A look at the best ODI performances and careers with a fresh metric - the HSI

HSI - A new and exciting measure for ODIs

The Tendulkar brace (article 1 and article 2) was a tough pair for me. Not only did I have to put in a lot of effort, but had to face a barrage of (often unjustified) criticism from fans of the great cricketer, who did not want to see any analyses that did not sing unrestrained praise. However, one good metric came out through these two articles as a very valuable one for measuring player contributions. I had presented a raw version of the HSI (High Score Index). This metric found support from many readers and I had promised that I would develop HSI as an independent measure after incorporating tweaks from many readers. This is the first attempt at that. In this article I have covered the ODI game: an easier one to start with because of the single-innings format.

The tweaks suggested can be summarised as below.

- Extend the concept to all innings, not just the top two scores.
- Incorporate the team score into the computations.
- Avoid the very high range of numbers in the early version: the HSI for an innings went as high as 11.4.
- Look at how the players have performed in various classifications, with HSI as the key measure.
- Look at the possibility of using a GM (geometric mean) rather than AM (arithmetic mean) because of the significant variations.

I have given below a few typical cases to bring out the nature of the problems.

A 100 as the top score does not provide enough information by itself. It could be out of a team score of 200 or 300. It could be supported by an innings close to 100, by a 50 or by a 25. It could be part of 200 for 1 or 200 all out. Most of the alternatives have been given above and the expectations have been given on the right. Everything is self-explanatory. I have explained the final methodology below.

The HSI is a measure of two components for the innings top score. The batsman stands alone at the top and his contribution gets enhanced depending on the support received. On the other hand the second-placed scorer has had the support of a higher-scoring batsman. So it is sufficient to take his and other lower scoring batsmen's contributions based on the team score. With this background let me show the working.

I worked out that there is no need to multiply the lower scores by Score/Hs1. That would lower the values too much. An Hs1 of 100 and Hs2 of 90 (out of 200) would end up with Hs1 well over 25% higher than Hs2, which is incorrect.

Now let us see all the values and check whether the expectations are met.

I have checked each HSI value and confirmed that it meets the expectations. Hence I will not go any further in depth. Readers can verify these numbers themselves. I also do a minor tweak for result matches where lower than 100 runs were chased down. Of course any unfinished innings below 100, in a no result match, is not considered.

Now that the HSI for every innings has been determined, let us move into the many tables I have created. The first is the basic table of the HSI value itself. I have shown the top 25 HSI values. There is a downloadable Excel file that contains the 24,000 innings which have HSI values greater than or equal to 0.1. Please download and peruse it before asking about specific innings or player.

Readers should remember that these calculations are scorecard-based, non-contextual and within a team. MS Dhoni's 65 out of 188, with Hs2 being 31, fetches an HSI of 0.724. Quinton de Kock's 135 out of 351, with Hs2 being 77, gets an HSI of 0.674. It does not mean that Dhoni's innings was better or match-winning. It only means that Dhoni contributed more to his team's cause. The result is immaterial. The key word is "contribution". All comparisons, within a match, should only be within a specific team innings. What is important is that Dhoni gets 0.724 and Kohli, 0.164. de Kock gets 0.674 and AB de Villiers, 0.218. Please make sure that this point is clearly understood.

An unambiguous note on the cut-off. I have selected 3000 ODI runs as the cut-off for the main table. There are 127 batsmen that qualify. Only one of these batsmen, Wasim Akram, has an average below 20.0 and I have decided not to exclude him. This cut-off has been determined on the assumption that a very good batsman would need around 100 matches to cross 3000 runs. In fact only 60 batsmen have reached this landmark in 100 matches. David Gower, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara, Stephen Fleming, Richie Richardson et al needed more. Once this stiff cut-off is set, all players are considered equal. Afterwards I am not going to say one batsman played in only so many matches and another played in many more matches and so on. The players have met the criterion set and that is it.

For the other 12 tables, there are varying cut-off points. In general, 50 innings has been used as the minimum for qualification. However, readers should note that to qualify for the later tables only the appropriate cut-off is needed. In other words, Sunil Gavaskar would qualify for the "BatPos 1-2-3" table even though he has scored only 2651 career runs. Brad Haddin would qualify for the "Wins" table even though he has scored only 2692 career runs. Clive Lloyd would qualify for "BatPos 4-5-6-7" table even though he has scored only 1977 career runs. And so on.

After getting the HSI values I evaluated on the need to do an alternate mean-evaluation. I decided that it is not necessary to use GM and used AM itself since the distribution pattern revealed a few important facts. The top entry is at 9.9, the next one at 6.7, the third one at 5.2, the fourth one at 5.02 and the fifth one is at 4.2. See how steeply the values drop: less that 50% value for the fifth entry. So there is really a single outlier: Brendon McCullum's innings, which is from the Twilight Zone. I did not want to be influenced by this single performance. Andrew Jones could also be considered as an outlier. After this, normalcy returns. Also the values, 5.24 to 0.0, are already in some form of logarithmic representation, representing 400 to 1.

A few important facts on HSI.

1. The highest HSI value is 9.983 for McCullum's 80 out of 87(+8) for 0, with the next highest score being How's 7.
2. Two great 100s: Viv Richards' 189* and Kapil Dev's 175* are in third and fourth position in the HSI table. The key numbers for Richards are 189 out of 262, followed by 26. For Kapil, 175 out of 254, followed by 24. Two almost identical innings. And Shane Watson's 185 is placed sixth. Great credentials for this table indeed.
3. The lowest HSI value for an Hs1 innings is in match #257. New Zealand scored 116. Richard Hadlee and Derek Stirling were joint top scorers with 13 runs each. Their HSI value was a mere 0.126.
4. The highest HSI value for an Hs2 innings is for Jesse Ryder. In match #2677, New Zealand were chasing 158 and finished at 165 for 0. Ryder scored 79 and McCullum, 80. Ryder's HSI was 0.496 and McCullum's, 0.509.
5. The lowest HSI value for an Hs2 innings is for Martin Crowe's 5 runs in match #629. Crowe's HSI value is 0.075.
6. The highest HSI value for a non-Hs1-Hs2 innings was for Herschelle Gibbs in match 1760. This was a funny innings. South Africa was chasing 229 and scored 230 for 1. Lance Klusener top-scored with 75 (HSI 0.347), Boeta Dippenaar followed with 74 (0.337) and Gibbs' scored 70. His HSI was 0.319.
7. 969 HSI values are 1.0 and above. This represents 1.6% of the total.
8. 3329 HSI values are 0.5 and above. This represents 5.6% of the total.
9. 35548 HSI values are below 0.10. This represents 59.6% of the total.
10.The average Hs1 for 6736 team innings is 71.3. The average Hs2 for these innings is 46.3. The ratio is 1.57. However, the average of ratios taken at innings level is 1.65 which is the more relevant figure.
11.The average HSI value for the 59655 innings is 0.144. This average will also let us take a stand on career averages of HSI. Maybe 0.22 would an excellent career average.

Now for the multiple HSI tables based on various selection criteria. This was one of the main objectives of this exercise. For most tables I have shown the top 30/25 players. Needless to say (or more appropriately, needs to be said) that the complete set of entries is available in the downloadable file with 13 tables. Please make an attempt to answer your question by downloading that file before asking me. Since this is one of the longest articles I have ever penned, I will only provide minimal comments.

1. Innings with high HSI values: Top 30 innings

HSI

Match Id

Inns

BatPos

Team Score

Batsman

Score

Hs2

9.983

2660

2

2

95 for 0

BB McCullum

80

7

6.693

629

1

3

74 for 10

AH Jones

47

5

5.243

264

1

4

272 for 9

IVA Richards

189

26

5.023

216

1

6

266 for 8

N Kapil Dev

175

24

4.272

2828

2

1

117 for 2

CH Gayle

80

14

4.021

3150

2

1

232 for 1

SR Watson

185

37

3.584

3407

2

1

70 for 1

SJ Myburgh

52

8

3.448

2873

1

3

312 for 8

CK Coventry

194

37

3.423

3042

1

1

325 for 8

PR Stirling

177

30

3.413

1963

1

2

202 for 10

JM Davison

111

19

3.400

1709

2

4

131 for 3

Inzamam-ul-Haq

85

17

3.360

1571

1

2

191 for 10

DR Martyn

116

22

3.328

2985

1

1

118 for 10

H Masakadza

62

11

3.261

636

1

1

196 for 8

Saeed Anwar

101

17

3.249

15

2

3

84 for 2

Zaheer Abbas

57

12

3.205

6

2

2

159 for 3

DL Amiss

100

20

3.116

1933

2

2

200 for 9

V Sehwag

112

23

3.063

1209

1

1

327 for 5

Saeed Anwar

194

39

3.034

1528

1

5

213 for 10

RP Arnold

103

19

3.021

2859

2

2

187 for 10

Rizwan Cheema

94

17

3.015

2514

1

2

102 for 3

ST Jayasuriya

63

14

3.002

831

1

3

277 for 5

RA Smith

167

36

2.971

2290

2

3

303 for 4

MS Dhoni

183

39

2.960

168

1

3

267 for 6

DI Gower

158

34

2.958

1944

2

4

225 for 10

SB Styris

141

32

2.895

747

2

2

167 for 3

Rameez Raja

119

30

2.866

2964

1

1

228 for 10

Tamim Iqbal

125

25

2.825

1582

2

2

101 for 10

HH Gibbs

59

14

2.814

620

2

3

164 for 2

DM Jones

102

24

2.800

544

1

4

140 for 9

Javed Miandad

63

13

It is safe to say that McCullum's innings is a true outlier. Chasing 95, scoring 80 (in 28 balls) out of 95, reaching the target in about six overs, allowing Jamie How to score 7: well, it does happen, but once every 40 years. Only the 100-run tweak kept this to below 10.0. Jones' innings was a more acceptable instance of domination. He scored 47 out of 74 with Crowe's 5 being the next highest score. Not as much of an outlier as McCullum's, but out of the ordinary.

Now we get to two all-time classics: in my opinion, seconded by many, the two greatest ODI innings ever played. No comparisons can ever be made of the higher scores on flat-belters with these classics in bowler-friendly conditions. I place the 189* higher only because of the quality of England bowling attack: Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Neil Foster and Derek Pringle. Richards came in at 5 for 1, saw the score slump to 102 for 7, scored 189 out of 272. The next highest score was Eldine Baptiste's 26, and Richards added 106 for the last wicket with Michael Holding, who scored 12. This was not in front of a super-charged crowd nor was it a television spectacle. It was total domination by an undisputed colossus. If there is an innings better than this, I am waiting to hear of the same, and will probably wait forever. This carries an HSI value of 5.243. I think HSI values of 5.0 are for once-in-a-lifetime performances.

Kapil's 175* (HSI 5.023) stands second only because there is a slightly better 5.xx innings ahead. Kapil came in at 9 for 4, saw the score at 17 for 5, scored 175 out of 266, including an unbroken stand of 126 with Syed Kirmani, who had the next best score of 24, Kapil played the innings of his life and those of million other lives. The similarities between the two innings are startling. That these two innings are third and fourth confirms to me the validity of HSI. If either of these innings had gone out of the top five, I might have had frowns on my forehead.

This table of 30 hosts a number of all-time classics: Richards' 189, Kapil's 175, Watson's explosive 185 (out of 232), the lesser-known masterpieces of Charles Coventry and Paul Stirling, Saeed Anwar's 194, David Gower's majestic 158, Scott Styris' all-time-classic 141 and so on. Barring minor personal preferences this is a table of many ODI classics.

2. All matches - Minimum 3000 runs

Batsman

CareerRuns

BatAvge

Qualifying Inns

Wins

HSI-Total

HSI

HSI gt 1.0

%

HSI gt 0.25

%

IVA Richards

6721

47.00

167

114

51.9

0.311

10

6.0%

61

36.5%

CG Greenidge

5134

45.04

126

89

38.1

0.302

8

6.3%

47

37.3%

HM Amla

4041

53.88

80

52

23.8

0.297

3

3.8%

29

36.2%

SR Tendulkar

18426

44.83

446

231

130.7

0.293

32

7.2%

146

32.7%

DL Haynes

8648

41.38

236

159

68.5

0.290

17

7.2%

81

34.3%

V Kohli

5154

51.54

118

73

33.6

0.285

6

5.1%

42

35.6%

CH Gayle

8743

37.52

246

103

69.0

0.281

16

6.5%

63

25.6%

MD Crowe

4704

38.56

140

60

38.1

0.272

5

3.6%

49

35.0%

DM Jones

6068

44.62

161

96

43.2

0.269

5

3.1%

47

29.2%

BC Lara

10405

40.49

289

134

77.5

0.268

17

5.9%

91

31.5%

Javed Miandad

7381

41.70

216

107

57.9

0.268

10

4.6%

69

31.9%

Saeed Anwar

8824

39.22

241

139

64.3

0.267

12

5.0%

69

28.6%

GR Marsh

4357

39.97

115

74

30.5

0.266

5

4.3%

31

27.0%

NV Knight

3637

40.41

99

45

26.2

0.265

3

3.0%

29

29.3%

GA Gooch

4290

36.98

120

64

31.7

0.264

8

6.7%

36

30.0%

ME Trescothick

4335

37.37

118

53

30.8

0.261

7

5.9%

33

28.0%

NJ Astle

7090

34.93

215

92

54.0

0.251

13

6.0%

60

27.9%

AJ Lamb

4010

39.31

118

62

29.3

0.248

6

5.1%

38

32.2%

NS Sidhu

4413

37.08

126

66

31.1

0.247

6

4.8%

38

30.2%

Tamim Iqbal

3702

30.10

124

45

30.5

0.246

6

4.8%

33

26.6%

ML Hayden

6133

43.81

153

114

37.7

0.246

5

3.3%

45

29.4%

S Chanderpaul

8778

41.60

250

99

61.3

0.245

9

3.6%

69

27.6%

G Kirsten

6798

40.95

183

120

44.5

0.243

8

4.4%

56

30.6%

SO Tikolo

3420

28.98

129

37

31.3

0.243

5

3.9%

34

26.4%

JH Kallis

11574

44.86

307

196

74.0

0.241

14

4.6%

99

32.2%

SC Ganguly

11363

41.02

299

147

72.0

0.241

13

4.3%

84

28.1%

KC Sangakkara

11948

40.23

332

175

78.6

0.237

14

4.2%

96

28.9%

HH Gibbs

8094

36.13

237

148

55.5

0.234

9

3.8%

59

24.9%

BRM Taylor

4414

33.69

144

33

33.6

0.233

7

4.9%

35

24.3%

GA Hick

3846

37.34

118

57

27.4

0.232

3

2.5%

37

31.4%

This is the most important table since it measures the HSI across the career. It can be seen that the numbers are at a different magnitude from the article on Sachin Tendulkar's ODI career, since I now measure all innings and have incorporated the team scores. Richards is comfortably ahead with a career HSI average of 0.311. This is confirmed by an average of 47+ and a win percentage around 70. Gordon Greenidge follows with 0.302, the only other batsman with an HSI value exceeding 0.3. Hashim Amla follows next close behind with 0.297. Even if Amla maintains 80% of his 80-match form in the next 80 matches, he may be in a similar position. Now comes Tendulkar: 446 innings, just over 50% wins, an average of 44.83 and an HSI of 0.293. Numbers depicting a magnificent career, embellished by the huge number of matches played and spread over 23 years. This top quintet is rounded off by Desmond Haynes. Look at the top 11 players in this table. The other six are Virat Kohli, Chris Gayle, Crowe, Dean Jones, Brian Lara and Javed Miandad. These, plus Ricky Ponting, are arguably the best 12 ODI batsmen ever, the Dazzling Dozen. Thus the importance of this measure is established once and for all. The relative positioning is immaterial.

3. Batting Positions 1-3 - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

IVA Richards

51

41

2418

47.41

18.2

0.356

BC Lara

158

81

6613

41.85

52.1

0.330

SR Tendulkar

344

178

15340

44.59

112.1

0.326

CG Greenidge

119

85

4985

41.89

37.4

0.314

S Chanderpaul

104

47

4228

40.65

32.6

0.314

V Kohli

84

53

3656

43.52

25.5

0.304

HM Amla

80

52

4038

50.48

23.8

0.297

CH Gayle

228

98

8402

36.85

67.7

0.297

RA Smith

53

23

2027

38.25

15.6

0.294

GA Gooch

98

52

3821

38.99

28.6

0.292

AH Jones

76

35

2382

31.34

22.1

0.291

DL Haynes

236

159

8644

36.63

68.5

0.290

BB McCullum

95

47

2923

30.77

27.4

0.289

DM Jones

133

80

5192

39.04

37.9

0.285

BRM Taylor

75

16

2345

31.27

21.2

0.282

WJ Cronje

52

27

1905

36.63

14.4

0.276

Saeed Anwar

229

135

8562

37.39

62.0

0.271

GR Marsh

115

74

4357

37.89

30.5

0.266

KC Sangakkara

213

111

8297

38.95

56.4

0.265

NV Knight

99

45

3620

36.57

26.2

0.265

IJL Trott

62

34

2751

44.37

16.4

0.265

ME Trescothick

118

53

4297

36.42

30.8

0.261

NS Sidhu

117

63

4266

36.46

30.4

0.260

ME Waugh

175

111

6926

39.58

45.4

0.259

NJ Astle

206

91

6929

33.64

53.3

0.259

SR Watson

111

73

4500

40.54

28.4

0.256

SC Ganguly

267

136

10611

39.74

68.2

0.255

JH Kallis

200

128

7870

39.35

50.6

0.253

GA Hick

61

30

2230

36.56

15.3

0.252

AN Cook

70

37

2667

38.10

17.5

0.250

Richards batted at the No. 3 spot just enough to qualify: 51 innings, an amazing 80+% wins, an RpI value of 47+ and an HSI value of 0.356. Lara is next having spent well over 50% of his career in these pivotal positions. Tendulkar follows just behind, but with a lot more matches. Then Greenidge and, surprisingly, Shivnarine Chanderpaul. Four of the top five players are West Indians of two different generations. In the next two positions are the two current giants.

4. Batting Positions 4-7 - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

MD Crowe

60

32

2118

35.30

18.7

0.311

IVA Richards

115

73

4298

37.37

33.7

0.293

Javed Miandad

194

91

6560

33.81

52.4

0.270

SO Tikolo

91

27

2437

26.78

23.7

0.261

LRPL Taylor

85

33

3147

37.02

20.8

0.244

PA de Silva

240

103

7947

33.11

58.7

0.244

AB de Villiers

105

67

4635

44.14

25.0

0.238

KP Pietersen

83

31

3162

38.10

19.3

0.232

Shakib Al Hasan

124

51

3688

29.74

28.5

0.229

RG Twose

72

28

2496

34.67

15.9

0.221

JH Kallis

106

68

3669

34.61

23.4

0.221

GP Thorpe

75

36

2332

31.09

16.3

0.217

MG Bevan

191

118

6775

35.47

40.4

0.211

RR Sarwan

82

39

3096

37.76

17.3

0.211

A Flower

137

41

4527

33.04

28.9

0.211

GA Hick

57

27

1616

28.35

12.0

0.211

AJ Lamb

106

56

3388

31.96

22.2

0.209

Inzamam-ul-Haq

275

149

9187

33.41

57.5

0.209

A Ranatunga

247

98

7302

29.56

51.5

0.209

SB Styris

139

72

4156

29.90

28.7

0.206

Misbah-ul-Haq

123

71

4234

34.42

24.9

0.203

A Flintoff

111

50

3229

29.09

22.1

0.199

S Chanderpaul

145

52

4539

31.30

28.7

0.198

Mohammad Yousuf

228

122

7678

33.68

43.9

0.193

BC Lara

130

53

3752

28.86

25.0

0.192

DB Vengsarkar

78

36

2302

29.51

14.9

0.191

M Azharuddin

239

106

7295

30.52

45.7

0.191

KC Sangakkara

117

64

3646

31.16

22.2

0.190

Yuvraj Singh

250

140

7911

31.64

46.0

0.184

SR Tendulkar

102

53

3024

29.65

18.6

0.183

Crowe has stolen the thunder from Richards in the Nos. 4 to 7 positions table. The generally lower HSI values, all barring one below 0.3, indicate the difficulty of making significant contributions when batting in the middle order. Richards maintains his win percentage value which is around two-thirds. That master of the middle order batting, Miandad appears next. Steve Tikolo, the only world-class batsman Kenya produced, is a well-deserved presence in this table. Ross Taylor rounds off the top five.

5. First inns - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

IVA Richards

80

56

3711

46.39

26.9

0.336

DL Haynes

99

68

4267

43.10

31.5

0.318

GR Marsh

65

47

2795

43.00

18.9

0.291

NV Knight

51

25

2061

40.41

14.8

0.291

DI Gower

56

25

1922

34.32

16.2

0.290

GA Gooch

61

31

2284

37.44

16.6

0.272

NJ Astle

114

44

4060

35.61

30.9

0.271

SR Tendulkar

218

107

9693

44.46

58.8

0.270

DM Jones

96

64

4108

42.79

25.8

0.269

Javed Miandad

125

62

4335

34.68

33.1

0.265

H Masakadza

62

15

1975

31.85

15.7

0.253

MD Crowe

74

28

2422

32.73

18.6

0.252

BC Lara

132

56

4980

37.73

33.0

0.250

NS Sidhu

57

29

2165

37.98

14.2

0.250

JH Kallis

152

96

5976

39.32

38.0

0.250

CG Greenidge

53

38

2130

40.19

13.3

0.250

SC Ganguly

151

74

6121

40.54

37.3

0.247

KC Sangakkara

194

105

7466

38.48

46.3

0.239

Saeed Anwar

136

81

4932

36.26

32.1

0.236

Shakib Al Hasan

57

19

1775

31.14

13.4

0.235

ME Waugh

130

85

5181

39.85

30.3

0.233

HH Gibbs

113

68

4041

35.76

26.2

0.231

AJ Lamb

61

27

2094

34.33

14.0

0.229

A Flower

109

33

3825

35.09

24.9

0.228

WU Tharanga

94

46

3269

34.78

21.3

0.227

ST Jayasuriya

221

125

7651

34.62

50.2

0.227

G Kirsten

90

61

3515

39.06

20.4

0.227

A Ranatunga

112

43

3618

32.30

25.3

0.226

AP Gurusinha

60

22

1866

31.10

13.6

0.226

GA Hick

56

26

2003

35.77

12.7

0.226

Richards excelled in the first innings: most of his top innings - 189*, 181, 138, 153, 149, were in the first innings. Look at the wonderful win ratio of 70% when West Indies batted first. And Richards outstanding RpI figure of 46. Haynes is placed second, with marginally lower figures. In fourth position is Marsh, the quintessential opening batsmen, with impressive figures under all columns. Knight rounds off the table, but with less that 50% wins. Tendulkar's figures are very impressive but the win percentage remains just below 50%, matching his career numbers.

6. Second inns - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

CH Gayle

130

59

4699

36.15

47.4

0.365

V Kohli

68

46

3327

48.93

24.6

0.362

SR Watson

55

36

2392

43.49

19.4

0.353

CG Greenidge

73

51

2996

41.04

24.8

0.340

GC Smith

95

58

3837

40.39

30.9

0.325

ME Trescothick

53

30

2019

38.09

16.8

0.318

SR Tendulkar

228

124

8671

38.03

71.9

0.315

Saeed Anwar

105

58

3849

36.66

32.2

0.307

ML Hayden

60

47

2424

40.40

18.4

0.307

MD Crowe

66

32

2282

34.58

19.4

0.295

SP Fleming

129

62

4398

34.09

37.4

0.290

IVA Richards

87

58

3010

34.60

25.0

0.287

BC Lara

157

78

5425

34.55

44.5

0.283

AC Gilchrist

127

90

4769

37.55

35.5

0.280

S Chanderpaul

130

58

4455

34.27

35.5

0.273

BRM Taylor

70

17

2245

32.07

19.1

0.273

Javed Miandad

91

45

3041

33.42

24.8

0.272

SO Tikolo

59

17

1609

27.27

16.0

0.272

DL Haynes

137

91

4377

31.95

36.9

0.270

AJ Lamb

57

35

1916

33.61

15.3

0.269

DM Jones

65

32

1960

30.15

17.4

0.268

Tamim Iqbal

67

29

2180

32.54

17.7

0.264

MG Bevan

81

45

2882

35.58

21.3

0.263

PA de Silva

160

66

5117

31.98

41.9

0.262

AJ Strauss

61

33

2218

36.36

15.8

0.259

G Kirsten

93

59

3258

35.03

24.1

0.259

GA Gooch

59

33

1990

33.73

15.1

0.256

Rameez Raja

85

43

2770

32.59

21.7

0.255

AB de Villiers

75

46

2932

39.09

18.9

0.252

LRPL Taylor

57

27

1653

29.00

14.4

0.252

A smattering of modern batsmen fills up this table. Four of the top five, Gayle, Kohli, Watson and Graeme Smith are still active. If we say that this indicates a better chasing scenario currently, then it may be the correct conclusion for the wrong reason since all these HSI numbers are measures within a team. But it is possible that there more chasing wins now than ever. Kohli's outstanding RpI in chasing wins stands out. Gayle's is slightly low but I expect that he makes up for this with a higher scoring rate. Tendulkar is fine, not outstanding, with a RpI of 38. However, he has a higher win percentage batting second, than batting first.

7. Home matches - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

ME Trescothick

57

25

2386

41.86

18.0

0.316

NJ Astle

84

42

3448

41.05

25.5

0.304

SR Tendulkar

159

95

6976

43.87

47.3

0.297

CH Gayle

102

47

3477

34.09

30.1

0.295

BB McCullum

74

40

2172

29.35

21.7

0.293

NS Sidhu

54

37

2159

39.98

15.7

0.291

BC Lara

85

45

3224

37.93

24.4

0.287

DM Jones

104

64

4069

39.12

28.9

0.278

Tamim Iqbal

61

25

1832

30.03

16.8

0.276

PA de Silva

63

41

2390

37.94

17.4

0.276

A Ranatunga

57

36

1897

33.28

15.7

0.275

Shakib Al Hasan

59

27

1837

31.14

15.3

0.259

S Chanderpaul

83

37

2923

35.22

21.5

0.259

HH Gibbs

101

71

3549

35.14

26.0

0.257

AJ Stewart

54

30

1816

33.63

13.8

0.256

GS Chappell

52

26

1568

30.15

13.3

0.255

Javed Miandad

59

39

1974

33.46

15.0

0.254

GR Marsh

72

50

2477

34.40

18.2

0.253

MD Crowe

56

31

1884

33.64

14.1

0.252

SC Ganguly

75

42

3110

41.47

18.9

0.251

MS Atapattu

71

54

2559

36.04

17.8

0.251

IR Bell

59

31

2344

39.73

14.5

0.246

BRM Taylor

74

23

2567

34.69

18.2

0.246

Inzamam-ul-Haq

64

40

2674

41.78

15.7

0.246

RR Sarwan

77

37

2777

36.06

18.8

0.245

H Masakadza

73

24

2226

30.49

17.8

0.244

GC Smith

93

60

3614

38.86

22.4

0.240

GW Flower

60

16

1931

32.18

14.4

0.240

Mohammad Yousuf

66

40

2767

41.92

15.8

0.239

MS Dhoni

82

50

3342

40.76

19.6

0.239

A very unlikely player at the top: Marcus Trescothick, who was very good at home, but memory tells me that many of these good innings were in lost matches. A tally of 25 wins in 57 matches confirms this. Nathan Astle follows next. Then it is Tendulkar, with a very good RpI value of nearly 44 and an HSI value of just below 0.3. It is surprising that there are not many Indian batsmen in the top-20. Maybe they all took HSI points off each other. It is also surprising that the HSI values are at a lower level: most values are below 0.3.

8. Away matches - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

IVA Richards

82

55

3921

47.82

34.7

0.424

CG Greenidge

56

36

2142

38.25

16.8

0.299

MD Crowe

53

16

1641

30.96

15.0

0.283

Javed Miandad

76

27

2573

33.86

20.9

0.275

BC Lara

93

32

3212

34.54

25.1

0.270

S Chanderpaul

82

27

3220

39.27

22.1

0.270

V Sehwag

88

40

3025

34.38

23.2

0.264

ME Waugh

80

43

3059

38.24

20.8

0.260

ML Hayden

59

39

2415

40.93

15.0

0.254

KC Sangakkara

125

56

4666

37.33

31.4

0.251

CH Gayle

85

34

3032

35.67

21.0

0.247

GA Hick

53

19

1621

30.58

13.0

0.245

LRPL Taylor

50

12

1799

35.98

12.2

0.243

Misbah-ul-Haq

59

38

2224

37.69

14.2

0.241

KP Pietersen

63

22

2423

38.46

15.2

0.241

JH Kallis

100

53

3707

37.07

24.0

0.240

G Gambhir

53

35

1917

36.17

12.7

0.239

G Kirsten

62

32

2341

37.76

14.6

0.235

SR Tendulkar

142

60

5015

35.32

33.0

0.232

NJ Astle

63

21

1898

30.13

14.6

0.231

GW Flower

76

20

2498

32.87

17.5

0.230

WU Tharanga

63

32

2109

33.48

14.4

0.229

Saeed Anwar

68

33

1833

26.96

15.5

0.228

BRM Taylor

55

5

1405

25.55

12.5

0.228

M Azharuddin

84

25

2789

33.20

18.9

0.225

DL Haynes

101

65

3033

30.03

22.6

0.224

GC Smith

58

32

2033

35.05

12.8

0.220

SR Watson

77

44

2792

36.26

16.7

0.217

Mohammad Hafeez

70

37

2193

31.33

15.0

0.215

RT Ponting

129

83

5090

39.46

27.7

0.214

Richards was the best traveller. I am almost certain that the very high HSI of 0.424 was caused by his stupendous performances in England and Australia. The 138, 153*, 189*, 149 were enough to give him this extraordinary HSI. Look at the very high RpI: nearly 48. Look at the away-win percentage of West Indies teams: 55 out of 82. Then Greenidge. The West Indians seem to have very good away figures, possibly because they do not play many home matches: Lara and Chanderpaul are there in the top ten. Virender Sehwag seems to have liked the pitches away from India too. Mathew Hayden has an above-average RpI value of nearly 41. But Richards stands supreme.

9. Neutral matches - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

SR Tendulkar

145

76

6373

43.95

50.4

0.348

CH Gayle

59

22

2168

36.75

17.9

0.303

G Kirsten

59

41

2384

40.41

16.5

0.280

Javed Miandad

81

41

2829

34.93

22.0

0.272

HH Gibbs

58

35

1974

34.03

15.6

0.269

DL Haynes

87

58

3042

34.97

23.3

0.268

Saeed Anwar

133

78

5351

40.23

35.0

0.263

AP Gurusinha

65

22

1753

26.97

17.0

0.262

SC Ganguly

126

65

4774

37.89

32.6

0.259

JH Kallis

75

49

2689

35.85

19.2

0.257

BC Lara

111

57

3969

35.76

27.9

0.252

A Flower

75

22

2544

33.92

18.9

0.251

RB Richardson

83

48

2346

28.27

20.2

0.244

AC Gilchrist

61

50

2017

33.07

14.8

0.242

ST Jayasuriya

162

82

5463

33.72

37.5

0.231

SP Fleming

93

41

2715

29.19

21.3

0.230

SB Styris

53

27

1529

28.85

12.0

0.226

PA de Silva

133

50

3950

29.70

29.6

0.223

KC Sangakkara

91

46

3179

34.93

20.2

0.222

S Chanderpaul

85

35

2632

30.96

17.7

0.208

Shoaib Malik

67

32

1936

28.90

14.0

0.208

Mohammad Yousuf

105

64

3497

33.30

21.8

0.208

Inzamam-ul-Haq

156

92

5118

32.81

32.1

0.206

NJ Astle

68

29

1711

25.16

13.9

0.205

IVA Richards

59

41

1995

33.81

12.1

0.205

V Sehwag

68

43

2249

33.07

13.3

0.195

Rameez Raja

86

45

2606

30.30

16.8

0.195

Aamer Sohail

68

39

2215

32.57

13.2

0.194

WJ Cronje

52

34

1619

31.13

10.0

0.193

ADR Campbell

57

19

1428

25.05

10.9

0.192

Tendulkar was king in the neutral locations. He also played in as many as 145 matches. Many of these were played at Sharjah and the VB Series-type triangular tournaments. An excellent RpI value of around 44 shows the extent of his contributions in these away matches. The win percentage is around his career level of 50%. Gayle is the only other batsman to have an HSI of above 0.3, with a decent RpI value. Gary Kirsten and Miandad, the king of Sharjah, complete the top five positions. Let me hasten to add that matches in UAE are neutral matches for Pakistan.

10. Wins - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

CH Gayle

103

103

4602

44.68

42.0

0.408

HM Amla

52

52

3259

62.67

19.2

0.369

NJ Astle

92

92

4254

46.24

33.2

0.361

IVA Richards

114

114

5129

44.99

40.1

0.352

BC Lara

134

134

6553

48.90

46.1

0.344

CG Greenidge

89

89

4185

47.02

30.1

0.339

NS Sidhu

66

66

3005

45.53

22.2

0.337

MD Crowe

60

60

2694

44.90

20.2

0.337

Saeed Anwar

139

139

6323

45.49

46.4

0.334

SR Tendulkar

231

231

11157

48.30

75.7

0.328

DL Haynes

159

159

6524

41.03

51.9

0.326

GA Gooch

64

64

2710

42.34

20.8

0.324

V Kohli

73

73

3813

52.23

23.4

0.320

DM Jones

96

96

4275

44.53

29.5

0.307

SC Ganguly

147

147

6938

47.20

44.4

0.302

GR Marsh

74

74

3096

41.84

21.8

0.294

G Kirsten

120

120

5224

43.53

34.7

0.289

HH Dippenaar

58

58

2491

42.95

15.9

0.273

Shakib Al Hasan

51

51

1854

36.35

13.9

0.272

V Sehwag

131

131

5748

43.88

35.6

0.272

ME Trescothick

53

53

2153

40.62

14.4

0.271

BB McCullum

88

88

2741

31.15

23.8

0.271

RR Sarwan

71

71

2917

41.08

18.8

0.264

PA de Silva

122

122

4905

40.20

32.0

0.263

SP Fleming

120

120

4357

36.31

31.6

0.263

MS Atapattu

136

136

5598

41.16

35.5

0.261

GC Smith

115

115

4692

40.80

29.4

0.256

IR Bell

59

59

2553

43.27

15.0

0.254

JH Kallis

196

196

8032

40.98

49.4

0.252

Javed Miandad

107

107

3931

36.74

27.0

0.252

In this and the next table, the "Wins" column is superfluous. However common programs generate the tables and I have left it at that. Chris Gayle is at the top of the Wins table. When West Indies won, he was right there outperforming his team-mates. That is what the value of 0.408 indicates. Gayle's RpI is well above average. Amla has won only 52 matches, but chips in very well. And look at his RpI which is an extraordinary 62+. Astle is a surprise entry. Let us not forget that he would have contributed with the ball too. Then comes Richards, winning 114 matches and having an excellent HSI of 0.352 and very good RpI value of 45. Lara is very close behind Richards. It is no surprise that the top-20 batsmen in this table have RpI values exceeding 40. Kohli is the only batsman other than Amla to have a 50-plus RpI value.

11. Losses - Minimum 50 innings

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

Javed Miandad

104

0

3389

32.59

30.5

0.294

NV Knight

53

0

1910

36.04

14.5

0.274

ME Trescothick

61

0

2036

33.38

15.8

0.259

AJ Lamb

55

0

1560

28.36

14.1

0.257

SR Tendulkar

200

0

6585

32.92

51.0

0.255

S Chanderpaul

144

0

4661

32.37

36.4

0.253

AP Gurusinha

86

0

2209

25.69

21.5

0.250

KC Sangakkara

147

0

4760

32.38

36.5

0.248

BRM Taylor

110

0

2977

27.06

26.6

0.242

SO Tikolo

91

0

2139

23.51

21.2

0.233

A Flower

144

0

4254

29.54

33.1

0.230

JH Kallis

102

0

3217

31.54

23.3

0.228

GA Hick

59

0

1601

27.14

13.4

0.226

KP Pietersen

66

0

2341

35.47

14.6

0.221

IVA Richards

51

0

1501

29.43

11.2

0.219

MEK Hussey

54

0

2022

37.44

11.8

0.219

Tamim Iqbal

79

0

2017

25.53

17.2

0.218

SM Gavaskar

56

0

1492

26.64

12.1

0.216

DI Gower

54

0

1377

25.50

11.6

0.215

DM Jones

61

0

1651

27.07

13.1

0.214

MD Crowe

78

0

1938

24.85

16.4

0.211

PA de Silva

163

0

4155

25.49

34.1

0.209

GW Flower

148

0

4188

28.30

31.0

0.209

MG Bevan

70

0

2276

32.51

14.6

0.208

Inzamam-ul-Haq

146

0

4118

28.21

30.2

0.207

LRPL Taylor

62

0

1941

31.31

12.9

0.207

HH Gibbs

83

0

2182

26.29

17.2

0.207

SB Styris

80

0

2005

25.06

16.6

0.207

DC Boon

64

0

1971

30.80

13.1

0.204

KO Otieno

68

0

1360

20.00

13.6

0.200

Javed Miandad figures at the top of the "Losses" table. Tendulkar is in fifth position. How do we explain this? The only sane explanation seems to be that they did what was expected of them and the others failed. However, let me add that the RpI of Tendulkar and Miandad in these matches is around 32. This indicates that they were not at their best but still out-performed their team mates. Let us not forget that the highest value of HSI in this table is only 0.294. It is not a table which can be easily explained. AS Milind says, A typical loss is normally due to fall of early wickets. So the top-three batsmen might not get too many HSI points.

12. Cup Finals - Minimum 6 innings (Featured - HSI: 0.250+)

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

Saeed Anwar

9

4

544

60.44

3.8

0.422

SC Ganguly

11

6

684

62.18

4.5

0.405

SB Styris

12

6

453

37.75

4.4

0.365

PA de Silva

12

6

529

44.08

4.3

0.362

Shakib Al Hasan

6

1

119

19.83

2.2

0.361

JH Kallis

16

8

794

49.62

5.7

0.356

HH Gibbs

12

5

668

55.67

4.2

0.352

GA Gooch

6

3

284

47.33

1.9

0.324

A Flower

6

0

142

23.67

1.9

0.320

ME Waugh

8

6

351

43.88

2.5

0.314

IVA Richards

7

5

324

46.29

2.2

0.309

ML Hayden

14

12

599

42.79

4.3

0.307

A Jadeja

6

2

240

40.00

1.8

0.305

PG Fulton

8

4

252

31.50

2.4

0.296

AC Gilchrist

22

19

764

34.73

6.5

0.295

RR Sarwan

11

4

397

36.09

3.2

0.294

S Chanderpaul

15

6

596

39.73

4.2

0.283

KP Pietersen

6

3

323

53.83

1.6

0.274

SR Tendulkar

17

11

649

38.18

4.5

0.265

SP Fleming

18

8

524

29.11

4.7

0.263

MS Atapattu

8

2

247

30.88

2.0

0.254

These are the matches from the World Cups and Champions Trophies, the true world-level tournaments. The matches from quarter-finals onwards and Super-xxx matches are included. A note on the qualification: There were only two important matches, as defined here, in the first few World Cups: the semi-final and final. As such there would be batsmen who have played in these World Cups who would barely reach six matches, leave alone ten. Hence, I have lowered the cut-off for inclusion in this table to six matches.

The table has very surprising entries at the top. The evergreen Saeed Anwar leads the table with 0.422. His RpI is an outstanding 60. Sourav Ganguly is another surprise. It shows the value of his partnership with Tendulkar and confirms the fact that he contributed more than his share in key matches. A magnificent RpI of 62 corroborates this. In third place is the unfancied New Zealand all-rounder, Styris. He has performed very effectively, almost always under the radar. Then we have de Silva, no doubt helped by those three top class performances during 1996, in which he scored over 200 runs. The top five segment is rounded off by the star allrounder from Bangladesh, Shakib. What he has done with limited support is wonderful. Richards is down in 11th position and Tendulkar is further down in 19th position. Look at the win percentage values of Mark Waugh, Hayden and Adam Gilchrist.

13. Important matches - Minimum 15 innings (Featured - HSI: 0.200+)

Batsman

Qualifying Inns

Wins

Runs

Runs per Inns

HSI-Total

HSI

G Kirsten

19

13

999

52.58

9.0

0.474

SR Tendulkar

38

17

1844

48.53

13.4

0.352

DM Jones

30

16

1064

35.47

9.7

0.323

IVA Richards

17

11

836

49.18

5.4

0.320

AC Gilchrist

32

23

1163

36.34

8.9

0.279

ST Jayasuriya

39

21

1613

41.36

10.8

0.277

BC Lara

18

6

507

28.17

4.9

0.272

ML Hayden

16

10

740

46.25

4.1

0.258

PA de Silva

23

9

878

38.17

5.7

0.248

GM Wood

15

8

544

36.27

3.5

0.235

R Dravid

22

3

729

33.14

4.9

0.221

MS Atapattu

26

16

969

37.27

5.6

0.216

AR Border

37

19

1057

28.57

7.8

0.211

SC Ganguly

28

7

989

35.32

5.8

0.206

M Azharuddin

27

14

823

30.48

5.5

0.205

KC Sangakkara

26

13

1023

39.35

5.3

0.204

DC Boon

22

15

751

34.14

4.4

0.202

Kirsten is on top, with an extraordinary RpI value of nearly 53. His HSI of 0.474 is one of the highest in these tables indicating his way-above-average contributions to the South African team. 13 wins out of 19 tells the story. Tendulkar follows next, with an almost similar RpI of 48 and HSI of 0.352. He played in 40 finals. However, the two Champions Trophy Finals against Sri Lanka are not included: he did not bat in one and scored 7 in a very short innings in the other. But his contributions have been invaluable to the Indian teams, although one must admit that the win percentage is disappointing indicating that the other Indian batsmen did not pull their weight. Then we see the two early giants, Jones and Richards.

Richards leads in four of these 12 tables. Gayle tops in two. After that comes a collection of wonderful players with one each: Tendulkar, Miandad, Kirsten, Saeed Anwar, Crowe and Trescothick.

This is, confirmed by my perusals of files, the longest article I have ever created. Readers should take their time to understand the ideas and calculations before firing their comments. A surface scan is not enough. I have written the article and it takes nearly me 30 minutes for a complete reading of the same including the tables. My take is that many of the questions can be answered if you download these two huge files and view the contents. Instead of asking me obvious questions for which the answers are already there in the tables, you could download the file and view the tables. And a final statement. The type of narrow, chauvinistic, inherently counter-productive responses I got on the pair of Tendulkar articles are not welcome and will not see the light of the day. There is a clear limit to everything. This is a new concept, there is a lot to be discussed and understood and I do not want this to be hijacked.

As I write this comes news of Graeme Swann's retirement. A really sad day indeed. He is the first victim of the sustained campaign against the senior English players. There is no room for sentiments in this hard current cricket scene as VVS Laxman found out last year. No player, barring one, is beyond this sustained pressure. This year has seen the retirement of three of my favourites: Michael Hussey, Tendulkar and Swann. All masters of their craft, artists par excellence, purists and wonderful role models. None of them had any on-field incident during the many years they played. I wish this great trio and the gentlemen-duo who retired during 2012 a wonderful post-cricket life.

I only hope that suddenly Kevin Pietersen does not see a rosy IPL-dominant-Test-excluded future a couple of weeks after Christmas. He has much to contribute to English cricket.

And just now, the hammer-blow: Jacques Kallis: What does one say, other than "inarguably one of the all-time greatest players ever" and that he deserves a complete article. When? is a $64,000 question.

What does one say of the extraordinary Test in Johannesburg? One of the greatest draws ever. At the end of five days, 440 overs, 1400 runs and 37 wickets, two boundaries separate the teams. I am amazed to see so many such wonderful Tests being played out nowadays. Both teams could say in public that they missed a win but would also feel in the dressing room that they have done a Houdini act. Anyhow this is one of the rare games about which one could say "both teams deserved to win and neither team deserved to lose". I would have given Faf du Plessis the Man-of-the-Match award. But the contribution numbers tell another story: it is Vernon Philander. For India to play West indies in a meaningless series and then go on to New Zealand for another such series, and playing a two-Test series against the best team in the world: myopic and short-sighted will not be enough to describe the nonsensical ego-driven scheduling.

I am amazed by the comments that South Africa did not go for a win. If one takes only the last 19 balls, did India go for a win? Certainly no. Barring a ball or two, almost all the balls were short outside the off stump with a single slip. There was no attempt to take a wicket. Dhoni waited for a mistake by South African batsmen, but they did not fall into the trap. Dhoni cannot be blamed for that, nor Philander or Dale Steyn. However, with a guy who could barely stand up and another who, at best, could be said to be better than Chris Martin, a wicket in the two overs before the last over could as well have been curtains for South Africa. Both teams played it safe.

I can understand the comments of many others, but not those of Kohli. Why should he talk about the other team's tactics when his own team also adopted a safety-first approach. To go for a win risks had to be taken and both teams, very correctly, avoided taking risks. And now Cheteshwar Pujara feels that when India batted the ball was doing something and when South Africa batted it was flat. What makes these guys keep on talking unnecessarily, inviting retorts from the other side, I wonder. Leave the other players out. I am sure the trio of Indian batsmen who accumulated 37,990 Test runs in 598 Tests would not say anything like this.

Re. the HSI - Would it make it sharper if the quality of the Top 6 (or so) batsmen was incorporated ?
Or otherwise "average average" of batsmen dismissed in an innings?
A Viv would look far more impressive if he did well on this metric in a very good team; as opposed to a good batsman in a weak team scenario.
Also this would be useful in judging individual innings. So if the "average average" of batsmen dismissed in Viv's 189 was higher than Kapil's 175, then that innings would have an edge.
Perhaps using the "average average" of the Top 6/7 batsmen in general or of those dismissed and then making a comparson may be more revealing.
[[
I suggest you do not forget that we are only talking about an innings not a career. At Manchester in 1984 or at Tunbridge Wells in 1983 or at Sharjah in 1998 or at Bridgetown in 1999 or at Durban in 2013, the much-vaunted team-mates of Richards, Kapil, SRT, BCL and Rahane failed despite having glittering career-numbers. So what is relevant is what was done in the concerned innings.
For that matter today at Abu Dhabi. The two stalwarts, with a combined avge of 107, contributed 21 runs between them. Mathews scores 91 and the next two innings are 38 and 20. What happened today is the essence of HSI, not not what happened over the years nor what is expected.
Ananth
]]

As per your definition, Top Batsman HSI is % team score scaled by ratio of out-scoring the 2nd best score. Further, this scaling benefit is not extended to the rest of the scores. To me, this appears to unnecessarily load the Top HSI.
[[
Anshu, I have already given an example of the effect of this. If you are suggesting that I could multiply Hs2 by Hs2/Hs3, Hs3 by Hs3/Hs4 and so on, it makes sense. But too much work for some minimal benefit.
Ananth
]]
I have a request, since you already have the tables ready. Can we calculate the HSI without the scaling component (HS1/HS2)?
[[
That is only the plain vanilla% of Team score. And I will lose the important component of support received. A 100/25 out of 200 will be treated the same as 100/95 out of 200. It would defeat the very base of this analysis.
Ananth
]]Also, I have a suggestion: Can we calculate the HSI for all batsmen as (% of team score X Batsman Score/Median Score)?
[[
Yes, possible. I can do that and the Impact factor in the follow-up piece.
Ananth
]]
Of course, you have already acknowledged that this was meant to be a Runs only derivation, and therefore does not incorporate the Scoring Rate. As with several other readers, I too would like to see an Impact (Runs X Scoring Rate) based index.
Another question: In what range does the value Sum(individual HSIs) across all innings lie? And what is the median value? My view is that the narrower the 95% band, the better the metric.
[[
Since I have now uploaded the complete data file you yourself can find this.
Ananth
]]

Posted by Fruho
on (December 29, 2013, 20:16 GMT)
- Featured comment

Really enjoyed this article, and the value of HSI as a statistical tool is undebatable. However, its greatest flaw is that it eliminates not outs from its calculations entirely. Whereas the standard batting average calculation may lend too much weight to not outs, HSI undermines the role of second innings, lower order "finishers." Of course, HSI is not the sole determinant for the greatness of an ODI innings/career, but the absence of noted finishers (Dhoni, Bevan, etc.) from the top of these tables (particularly the second innings table) shows that the tool should only be used with its limitations in mind. This apart, thank you for a brilliant and in depth analysis.
[[
A very valid and well-constructed comment.
I understand that this particular metric is slanted towards the top order batsmen. To the extent Hayden is ahead of Ponting. It is not necessarily a flaw but can be construed as an inherent facet of the metric. As we develop this we could use the Batting Position Average as a normalizing factor. The other idea suggested, which is to do a HSI equivalent calculation based on a combination of Runs and Scoring Rate will also address this.
Ananth
]]

It is interesting to see that the West Indies of 70's and 80's had 3 players who are in top 5 of HSI list. We may not be able to relate results with HSI but having one of the top 3 perform most of the time and with a world class attack at their disposal,i can understand the fact windies dominated the 70's and early 80's. If it is possible to further breakdown HSI by years, it may show that the performance levels of the batsmen have dropped after 85-86 and could be a main factor in the slow decline of the team through the late 80's. During the 90's and later, it may have been only Lara/Gayle doing the bulk of scoring and this would affect the team badly.
Ananth do you think it is possible to provide HSI by year for some of the top batsmen to see how they progressed over their careers
[[
It is a very valid point since the career numbers over number of years will hide many facts. But getting it by player/year is quite difficult because of the number of combinations. One good thing is that I now have the HSI value embedded in the player line record in the match data.
I can do one thing. Let us meet half way. I will include the year in the downloadable OdiHsi file. I will also add an extra chronological worksheet. After downloading this new sheet you could do some work on the Excel sheet or someone else could do that and post the results. Unfortubnately I have some medical situation with my eyes and will not be able to do a lot in the coming days.
Ananth:
]]

Very interesting stuff, and good to see guys like Crowe, Tikolo, Greenidge get their time in the sun.
I liked Kanshi's suggestion that the other teams scores should be a factor as well. You responded that Kapil's 175 should not be affected by Zimbabwe...but I believe it should. If the ZIM batsmen scored 1/235 and 2 batsmen made 100s vs 235 all out with a top score of 50 - that is a large difference. Including that would reflect the match conditions more accurately. It all depends on the objective, measuring contribution to team or highlighting outstanding innnings. If the later, I feel the other teams efforts in the match must be considered to judge how outstanding the innings truly was.
[[
I think we should differentiate between "how difficult was it to score and what was the pitch like" and "what was the batsman's contribution to the team score". If we analyze the first one what you and Kanshi suggest makes sense. If it is the second, and the HSI is taht, then we should consider the batsman innings. The importance of proper peer comparisons is another important factor.
Ananth:
]]
Ponting was my other area of interest. Fascinating that Ponting doesn't make many lists, yet Hayden is there in table 2.
[[
Maybe Hayden & Gilchrist at the top were so successful that Ponting was deprived of opportunities.
Ananth:
]]

Thanks for the nice Analysis, Anantha. I would like to see two more analysis
1) similar analysis for runs*S/R
2) additional grain of analysis for lower order batsmen. No 6 and lower or No5 and lower etc
[[
Let me look at these two. Runs*S/R may lead to way out results. I have already done a number of analyses using the two factors in different combinationa, called Impact Index. Pl also see VK10's comment.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by VK10
on (December 28, 2013, 14:50 GMT)
- Featured comment

@Ananth: Nice article.

1. As suggested earlier, it would be good to derive HSI as a ratio of the batsman score to the sum of the 3 other top scorers.
[[
Do you mean three other top scores. Why three. A 100 50 30 20 does not convey any different meaning from 100 50 30 10 or 100 50 20 20.
Ananth:
]]
2. It would be nice to do this analysis with impact factor (runs * SR) replacing the batsman score.
[[
Yes, there is another suggestion. However I am worried by the way-out numbers with strike rates exceeding 200. 50*2.0 is 100 & 100*.8 is 80. I remember we had long discussions and settled on some other factor,. I will look it up.
Ananth:
]]
3. Ponting, Hayden, Gilly do not rank high HSI as Aussies were super strong in batting '96-'09.

4. Good to see Anwar & Dean Jones fare well on HSI. Dean Jones wrote an entire chapter on running between wickets while Anwar was the first to hit 100's on a regular basis. Anwar's poor performances in Australia highlight his weaknesses but 20 centuries and 194* is quite some career. Sadly, after his retirement, Anwar grew beard and locked his brain.

5. Kallis' retirement closes the book of great players who started in the 20th century (sorry, Chander!). He recd a classy GOH from the Indian team. Perhaps a classy joint tribute from you to him & Ponting is due?
[[
When???
Ananth:
]]

Posted by &nbsp
on (January 9, 2014, 11:11 GMT)

Excellent insights. A few thoughts - particularly on Table 2 - It features 3 batsmen from the same generation featuring in that table - Viv, Haynes & Greendige. That too during the days when 220 was above par (and ODIs of 55 over / 60 over durations). These batsmen had healthy 40+ averages as well. Contrast this with the absence of Ponting, which was attributed to a strong team. Not only Viv, but the other two were on top of their games as well. Similar is the case of India which had multiple batsmen from the same generation in this table (not exactly - we can say Sidhu was half generation behind and Kohli was half generation ahead). This, irrespective of batting position, is an excellent indicator that more often than not, these batsmen invariably came up with significant contributions to their teams (strong batting teams). In other words, strong batting team is not necessarily a deterrent to feature in this list. Ponting was a great, but Haydos was a shade more impactful for Aussies.

Posted by Rameshkumar_Satyamoorthy
on (January 3, 2014, 6:38 GMT)

Ananth,

I think HSI needs some tweaking in ODIs. A few thoughts on this measure

1. High score in ODIs with lower strike rate is not only of lower value to the team. But it also puts more pressure on the other players who in turn go for strokes and get out, thereby making the HSI look better which does not make sense.

2. High score along with strike rate may give different interpretations depending on whether you are setting the target or chasing the target. Good HSI with good strike rate while chasing a big score will be of different challenge than while chasing a lower one. So is there a case to look at 300+ score differently?

3. For a lower order batsmen, we can probably keep a notional good score (may be a 40?) and measure his contribution as any other measure may complicate it further.

Posted by Anshu.N.Jain
on (December 31, 2013, 9:41 GMT)

Thanks Anantha for your responses.
On your comment "If you are suggesting that I could multiply Hs2 by Hs2/Hs3, Hs3 by Hs3/Hs4 and so on, it makes sense. But too much work for some minimal benefit" - no, I wasnt suggesting this method, which will actually yield erratic results for some situations (If the top 3 scores in a team total of 150 are 75,50 and 10, then HSI for Hs1 = 75/150*75/50=0.75 and HSI for Hs2 = 50/150*50/10=1.67; Hs2>Hs1, defeating the very purpose)
My query "Can we calculate the HSI without the scaling component (HS1/HS2)?" meant calculating the career HSI for players without the scaling component. That would still be a worthwhile metric to look at, as opposed to an aggregate career % of total team runs scored.
[[
Yes. It is a sum of BS/TS rather than (Sum of BS)/(Sum of TS).
Ananth
]]
I havent looked up the data tables in detail. Will do so now. Thanks :-)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Anantha NarayananAnantha spent the first half of his four-decade working career with corporates like IBM, Shaw Wallace, NCR, Sime Darby and the Spinneys group in IT-related positions. In the second half, he has worked on cricket simulation, ratings, data mining, analysis and writing, amongst other things. He was the creator of the Wisden 100 lists, released in 2001. He has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket, and worked extensively with Maruti Motors, Idea Cellular and Castrol on their performance ratings-related systems. He is an armchair connoisseur of most sports. His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth.